The three cosmogenic paradoxes

In relation to the mention of Genesis, the Earth, it is said, was created on such and such day, the heavens, the universe,etc. The first question logic dictates is, how did God know what day it was? Is there some universal calendar that does not correspond to the rotation of the Earth around the sun? If there were no people on Earth at the time, then why would a "day" be so important. If God can accomplish all this without any help,see something from nothing then why did he have to rest, was it the Sabbath?? Where was the church? Time would seem to be an unnecessary thing if you can create a planet/solar system/universe ne c'est pas? go there

The first two paradoxes above can all be accounted for, fairly neatly, by the basic properties of fundamental physics, especially quantum physics. The third is not quite so easy.

The first paradox: There can be no effect without a cause. Whatever events transpired near the outset of time, each must have been caused by some prior event. So we can never attain an account of the very beginning.
Causality is not a requirement of the fundamental laws of physics. In the macroscopic world, causality works, due to the massive number of elementary particles involved in any interaction, which cancels out any odd funny stuff at the individual particle level. But something can happen that didn't have any cause, it's only a matter of probabilities. The Copenhagen Interpretation is the more-or-less canonical view of quantum mechanics currently, and it addresses this somewhat.

The second paradox: You can't get something from - or for - nothing. The "origin" of the universe, if that concept is to have any meaning, must create the universe out of nothing. Therefore there can be no logical explanation of genesis.
Yes, you can generate something from nothing. Zero-point energy exists, and it comes purely from an empty vacuum of space, due to, again, quantum indeterminancy encoded in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. There might not be a lot of energy there, but you can in fact get something out of nothing. Just getting a lot of something out of nothing is unlikely.

The third paradox: Regardless of its net energy, the universe must have originated from another system, and that system must in turn have had an origin of some sort. And so we are caught in infinite regress.
This one one can't say much about. Even if the universe began as a massive vacuum fluctuation in some sort of primordialvacuum, one can always ask what set up the laws of physics the way they are. That's really where we go past what modern science can say. Eventually, no matter what path one follows, one has to declare 'that's just the way it is', whether on a religious or a scientific basis.

Each of these three paradoxes are the same. The wording and semantics differ, but they are the same basic paradox.

The second phrasing sums up all three the best. Something from Nothing.This is the crux of the problem. It is impossible for us to conceive of nothingness. Nothingness in this case is a nothingness so total that it doesn't need somethingness to make it discernible. (Unlike darkness, which has no meaning without light and vice versa.) This is a nothingness that doesn't even require the preexistence of the idea of nothingness. So, we really can't call it nothingness, it is a misnomer. Whatever it is it can't really be named. A name implies a relative framework, and whatever this is, it must be absolute, not relative.1

The first phrasing inquires into the manner in which something was arrived at from nothing.
Discussing cause and effect involving something that cannot be relative doesn't begin to make sense.

The third phrasing simply tries to compare something and nothing.
The nature of comparison is to relate two things. If one cannot be relative, this too is meaningless. Not only is it meaningless but it is indistinguishable from the first phrasing, they are both simply offering comparisons.

I would emphasize that Quantum Mechanics and Vacuum are still systems that can be seen to have causes, perhaps not yet, but undoubtedly science will look for and find them. Quantumet explained this though, so I don't need to go into any greater detail.

Logic, Reason, Thought, Existence. All of these are terms that are based in relationship. The one paradox of cosmogeny is ultimately how do we relate to something that cannot be related to? Any of these other paradoxes simply reiterate this. The three above paradoxes aren't so much different paradoxes as different attempts to get around the same paradox.

This doesn't mean that there is nothing out there beyond what we can relate to.2 It means the logics that serve us so well in this frame lose all meaning beyond it. Just as children need to develop abstract thought in order to solve complex puzzles or play advanced chess, perhaps we need to develop a new kind of abstract thought not based around the same certainties upon which traditional logic relies. QM looks like a good start. Even if we found whole other levels out there, of which we currently cannot even conceive, we couldn't escape from the basic cosmogenic paradox. It will continue to haunt us. It's like a carrot, or that bunny that the greyhounds chase at the track.

1. Apropos of quantumet's statement that sooner or later we have to accept that that is the way it is: The paradox of God (here I am calling him Nothingness for reasons we will see in a minute) is such that he exists, and from his vantage we do not exist. This is what I mean by absolute, from the vantage of the Nothingness it is all there is, there is nothing else. (Likutei Amarim) As long as we are discussing us relative terms are applicable, but as soon as you discuss the nothingness relative terms make no sense. It's a complicated paradox, more so I think than the cosmogenic one mentioned here.
2.Unless you like a good pun, and then it means exactly that.

ps. If it seems I write here with a condescending tone, please overlook this, I don't mean to (I only added this because I've been told I do sometimes) and I'm more interested in what other people think about these ideas than in offending anyone or inviting others to offend me. if you find me offensive and you think others would benefit from your insight into my offensive nature, msg me your thoughts and i will post them in my home node so that their viewership won't be impeded by being in a single node, but rather available from any node I write in.